Newspaper editorial boards will almost always go for the more conservative, establishment candidate. Perhaps more importantly, nobody has ever given a shit as to who they endorse. Keep in mind: as far as Republicans go, the New York Times is the New Pravda Times and as far as Democrats go, they're the house of Jayson Blair and Judith Miller.

We're also talking about a New York paper attempting to influence an Iowa caucus, which illustrates the ridiculousness of the whole process, I think. How many people in Des Moines do you think give a shit about the New York Times?

Here's what I think: I phonebanked and canvassed for John Kerry in 2004 and that fucker gave up after about 20 minutes, despite the fact that exit polls had him creaming the shit out of Bush and despite the fact that there were (and are) credible allegations of vote manipulation. And here's what I think: I phonebanked and canvassed for Jay Inslee back when he was a representative but when I said "a living wage" was my number one issue he looked at me like a Venusian. Fuck, maybe I just came from the future.

So I don't really expect anything that I want is going to be represented by my government because I'm 100% positive that's not how government works. But you know what? I've been a big fan of Bernie Sanders since he was one of like three people not to support the Patriot Act. And fuckin' A - I was a big fan of Hillary Clinton back when she tried to create Obamacare.

I legit voted for Clinton twice, not against Bush, not against Dole. And yeah, NAFTA fucked a lot of people and holy shit you can blame the Clintons for Walmart but sweet merciful jesus this is simply what it looks like when ACLU-lovin' dope-smokin' Arkansas liberals have to survive in a conservative maelstrom for 40 years. Adapt or die. I know Elizabeth Warren has a bone to pick with Clinton and she's right but fuckadoodle do you gonna vote for Meg Whitman? Carly Fiorina? Sarah Palin?

Hillary Clinton is what you get when a legit conspiracy spends billions of dollars spreading the slander that had your lawyer killed because he was going to rat on your secret Arkansas airstrips for drug running. Hillary Clinton is what you get when Congress makes your president husband testify under oath because you were swindled in a land deal 20 years previously. We've got a fuckin' Michael Bay movie over whether or not Hillary has proper email etiquette. It's fuckin' batshit. And I'm all about the socialists and god bless Bernie Sanders and I probably agree with him on 90% of his policies but he's been studiously NOT steering the conversation in congress since before we invaded Iraq the first time.

I would love to vote for Bernie Sanders. Shit - I'd love to vote for Hillary Clinton. But at the end of the day, I don't live in Iowa so what I think doesn't mater even in the abstract for another ten months.

Gene Lyons and Joe Conason start The Hunting of the President with a chapter called "The Ghost of Lee Atwater." Apparently one of the last edicts issued by the man before he died of a brain tumor was that the upstart governor of Arkansas needed to be taken out before he amounted to anything or he'd be the number one thorn in the side of the conservative establishment as long as he lived. That was '91.

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this — they have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

The Today Show, January 27 1998, to Matt Lauer

They made a lot of hay with that. It took about six years for David Brock to admit that he was a high-ranking lieutenant in that very same vast right wing conspiracy. He wrote Blinded by the Right and formed Media Matters for America. Richard Mellon Scaifealone spent $2m on Troopergate.

The Republicans have been trying to "burn the witch" for 40 years now. Yet when Hillary mentions this, she's painted as a whiner. Is she as liberal as I'd like? Nope. But goddamn she's a survivor. People forget that Jimmy Carter ran as an outsider. Know what sucks about outsiders? They have no connections and can't get anything done.

Given a chance, I'll vote for Sanders in a primary. Not that anyone has ever given a shit about the Washington primaries. Of course, I voted for GWB in the 2000 primaries for the simple reason that I figured McCain was the only credible candidate so...

People forget that Jimmy Carter ran as an outsider. Know what sucks about outsiders? They have no connections and can't get anything done.

Bringing Carter into this discussion is apt. Carter did this when the Southern Strategy was at its most effective. Sure, Nixon imploding helped him out, but he was also very popular, and his loosing in 1980 had as much to do with Ted Kennedy attacking him from the left in the primaries as with Reagan. Sure, no one knew how bad Reagan was going to turn out, but Carter might well have realigned the South if he had held on. I wonder if that's what Atwater was thinking of when he named Clinton a threat.

Before Clinton so much as investigated running for President, Atwater had already started a campaign to defeat him as governor so that Bush wouldn't have to deal with him in '92. Atwater stated publicly that the Democrats' only chance of retaking the presidency was a fiscally-conservative southern democrat and the only one of any merit was Clinton.

She has nobody's interest in mind but her own. I think that she has demonstrated time and time again, many of her campaign's statements and her intentions are wildly, dangerously different. I have absolutely no trust, confidence, or faith in Clinton, and I think a lot of the experience that this op-ed highlights only illustrated this notion.

Also, as an aside,

[Bernie Sanders' plan] to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system

That's not true, and his campaign repeatedly denies that they're turning everything over. Yes they will need to start the debates all over again, but the new plan incorporates some of the hardest-fought policies that the Obama administration already worked over. Ugh.

I don't yet know who is best to lead the nation over the upcoming 4 years. The only thing most people have been able to discern so far is who is speaking their mind, and who is talking out of their wallet.

I mean you're probably broadly right -- I certainly haven't paid any attention to anything any campaign has said recently, with the notable exception of Limberbutt's (they've been quiet on the issues) -- but

She has nobody's interest in mind but her own.

this actually doesn't mean she'll be a bad president, if you think about it closely, and

many of her campaign's statements and her intentions are wildly, dangerously different

this is how the system she is playing within was built, and

Yes they will need to start the debates all over again

what will this accomplish given the current makeup of the House and Senate? Nothing. Finally,

The only thing most people have been able to discern so far is who is speaking their mind, and who is talking out of their wallet.

Oh, no. I think you're totally on point when you say that Clinton's campaign is a series of calculated statements, mostly drawn from poll data, that has little to relation to how she actually feels.

I wouldn't say she doesn't have anyone's interest but her own, though. I believe she's sincere when she talks about backing women in the workplace, as well as being broadly aligned with the middle class. It's just that she's totally bought out by the financial services industry. I think her worldview precludes any serious structural reform of banking or serious regulation of the financial industry. Not to mention universal healthcare, something I think the United States is sorely lacking.

But. I can't help but feel that she's... kinda aight. I don't know if my tacit acceptance of her as future prez is shameful proof that we can't expect any better. I feel dirty for saying it, but I'm sort of down with Hillary. I don't know why. Probably because the Republican candidate field makes me want to vomit.

I try to avoid most political discussions. I feel I'm sufficiently informed in the areas that are important to me, and anything further is just frustrating or pointless, even if I'm talking to people I largely agree with.

That said, the coffee shop I frequent had a Bernie Sanders fundraiser today, and I stuffed $10 in the box. I'd never donated to a primary before, and the last time I donated to an election was in '04 for the guy running against Bush. There are some key things I disagree with Sanders on (specifically his promotion of wind and solar power while excluding nuclear), but I'm in the "this is our one chance to elect someone who values voters as people and not votes" camp.

But if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for her in the general. When I voted for not-Bush in '04, it was because he wasn't Bush, not because I supported him. But if Clinton is the nominee, that won't be the case. I don't dislike Clinton, I just like Sanders more.

Clinton looks unattractive to a lot of left-leaning people because they think the left is in a stronger position than it has been in a long time and so the Democrats can afford to have a candidate to the left of Reagan. If you're looking at things that way, Hillary is a relic of a very bad few decades and you want someone less pragmatic and more of an idealist now that you don't feel like you're on the retreat. If your glasses are more jade than rose you remember that Obama isn't far to the left of Reagan and the Democrats still had to fight tooth and claw to get anything not completely mundane done for the past 8 years.

Give me the compromised, cynical, professional lesser evil. Bernie bringing socialism back into the Overton window is great, but it's not yet time to stop being defensive.

I think that newspaper endorsements are about as notable as campaign contributions. When it comes down to it, at least with what has been presented to me, campaign contributions come from people who already support the candidate, not those trying to influence the candidate to their position. It's been pretty obvious for a while now the NYT would endorse Hillary. But their readers already do too. When it all comes down to it, the extra notice and support is nice, but it probably won't make that big of a difference.